Supreme Court asks Democrats to respond by Thursday at 5 to Trump bid to challenge late-arriving Pennsylvania ballots.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
These are just the ballots (tens of thousands, maybe) that arrive after Election Day but before Friday. Trump asking court to let him intervene in (take over) pending GOP challenges to those ballots. Supreme Court previously refused to block extension or expedite case.
Penn. Sup Ct, citing its state constitution, extended the statutory received-by deadline because of pandemic, mail delays. GOP and Trump say that violates U.S. Constitution, which gives state legislature, not state courts, power to set presidential election rules.
Pre-Barrett, Scotus split 4-4, left extension intact, meaning the new justice could cast the deciding vote. But it's possible one or more conservatives now won't be willing to toss votes people cast in reliance on the extended deadline.
And there's no guarantee the late-arriving votes would make the difference in Pennsylvania, or even favor Biden. So we're a long way from Bush v. Gore.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Greg Stohr

Greg Stohr Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GregStohr

19 Sep
Statements about Justice Ginsburg from her colleagues. First Roberts:
Thomas:
Breyer:
Read 12 tweets
17 Sep
Not a bad time to re-listen to Al Gore's concession speech the day after the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling. The Supreme Court had arguably left tiny lane for Gore to try to fight on, but he saw the writing on the wall and opted to exit graciously. c-span.org/video/?161263-…
"Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. ...While I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome. ... And tonight for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."
"Our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country. And I say to our fellow members of the world community: Let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome."
Read 4 tweets
29 Jun
BREAKING: Supreme Court puts Trump administration on track to resume federal executions as soon as July 13, rejecting an appeal and stay application by inmates who challenged the lethal injection protocol the government plans to use.
Scotus also turns away legal attack on Trump’s border wall, refusing to question law that let his administration waive more than 40 federal statutes to start construction.
No action on Trump administration bid to keep from having to give a House committee sealed materials from Mueller investigation. We could get news on Thursday, possibly a grant that would keep info sealed through the election.
Read 5 tweets
19 Jun
One thing I've learned this Supreme Court term: Be really, really careful about presuming how Roberts will vote based on his questions at argument. In the two LGBT cases, every one of his questions went to the workers' lawyers. But he voted with them in the end. 1/4
Likewise with DACA. I was one of many Scotus reporters who produced an argument story saying the court seemed inclined to let Trump cancel it, based in part what Roberts said and asked at argument. We were wrong. 2/4
Roberts isn't Kennedy, who always seemed to express his deepest concerns during argument. On occasion, Roberts does that (e.g., his fear that gerrymandering cases would pull the court into partisan politics). But those are the exceptions. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
7 Apr
BREAKING: 5th Circuit says Texas can enforce its near-total ban on abortion during coronavirus outbreak.
2-1 decision says ban is warranted to prevent depletion of personal protection equipment. "In the unprecedented circumstances now facing our society, even a minor delay in fully implementing the state’s emergency measures could have major ramifications."
Dissenting Judge Dennis: "In a time where panic and fear
already consume our daily lives, the majority’s opinion inflicts further panic and fear on women in Texas by depriving them, without justification, of their constitutional rights ... "
Read 5 tweets
11 Mar
No word yet from Supreme Court on next argument sitting, set to start March 23. DC Health Dept recommending canceling mass gatherings of 1,000+ people. SCOTUS courtroom can squeeze in a bit more than 500, counting the seats in the so-called hallway.
We've asked, but so far the court hasn't said anything about contingency planning. One option would seem to be holding arguments in a largely empty courtroom. Not clear how that would work for, say, press coverage.
One thing undoubtedly of concern for the court: Six justices are age 65 or older, and two (Ginsburg and Breyer) are 81 or older. Should any of them contract the virus, the risks are real.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!